Corporations are people too! Recently the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations like Hobby Lobby can refuse birth control converge based on the owner's religious beliefs. Under the contraceptive mandate, employers are required to provide employees with health insurance that covers contraceptive costs. However it was decided that the owners of Hobby Lobby were being forced to violate their right to practice their religion by providing birth control to their employees as part of their healthcare plan. Corporations can now be exempted from providing certain contraceptives to their employees (ie: morning after pill, IUD).

Do corporations have religious rights? Is it their responsibility to provide birth control?

“Our family is overjoyed by the Supreme Court’s decision. Today the nation’s highest court has re-affirmed the vital importance of religious liberty as one of our country’s founding principles. The Court’s decision is a victory, not just for our family business, but for all who seek to live out their faith. We are grateful to God and to those who have supported us on this difficult journey.” -Barbara Green, co-founder of Hobby Lobby source

If you have a chance to read the actual court filings, and not through some second party site, then the issue at bat was actually whose rights are being violated and whose rights are being preserved. It was a really odd case and the justices had to make their decisions based only on the arguments put forth by both sides. The ruling had to go for one side or the other, as they can not mediate. You can read the actual decision and reasons here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

There sadly is no way to summarize the logic in just a few sentences because it is a very convoluted situation and remember, the issue here is one of legality not personal opinion. That means there must be a logical progression for all arguments. Saying "it is the right thing to do" then requires a "why". I sometimes wonder how the heck these folks even manage to wrap their heads around everything that has to be considered.

If you have a chance to read the actual court filings, and not through some second party site, then the issue at bat was actually whose rights are being violated and whose rights are being preserved. It was a really odd case and the justices had to make their decisions based only on the arguments put forth by both sides. The ruling had to go for one side or the other, as they can not mediate. You can read the actual decision and reasons here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

There sadly is no way to summarize the logic in just a few sentences because it is a very convoluted situation and remember, the issue here is one of legality not personal opinion. That means there must be a logical progression for all arguments. Saying "it is the right thing to do" then requires a "why". I sometimes wonder how the heck these folks even manage to wrap their heads around everything that has to be considered.

What matters is the impact it has on people. It's important to ask questions pertaining to this case especially since people have to live with that decision, even if it's just personal opinions. Open the discussion into other realms creates a broader view of the consequences of this decision. Also, the vote was 5-4 so clearly the judges didn't share the same 'logical progression' and that is where opinion comes in. I've linked the supreme courts's opinion through scotusblog and hobbylobbycase site, but I didn't link it directly because I figured a 95 pg wall of text would just automatically be a tl;dr.

Personally, I think Ginsburg has the right of it in her dissent. Contraception is not specifically funded by the employer since the funds are undifferentiated, a woman's choice to use her earned health insurance benefits to obtain contraception is in no way compelled by the employer (and therefore in no possible world translates into action on the employer's part), and universal access to contraception offers measurable public health benefits even if you do twist around the phrase "religious liberty" to mean something it really, really doesn't in order to pretend employers' religious liberty is being violated.

FlyinDumpling, you probably would love an Ethics professor I had. For every lecture, he said, "The law can state what it wants. Logic is just a progression of thought but it is always colored by what we want to hear and see." It was definitely a landmark case, because the justices did point out a lot of things that neither side argued to their satisfaction. Something tells me that this issue isn't dead, so I'm not expecting massive overhauls any time soon. It would be to expensive to undo the overhauls, if things get changed around again. I foresee the "pro-choice" (I hate that label by the way) lobby taking a different approach more along the lines of what the dissenting judges had to say.

Ew, didn't this discision also skeeve off medical organisations because of how they said it interferes with the doctor patient relationship?

As for me, I believe that contraceptives and abortion, along with vaccines, should not be eligible for denial on the grounds of religious freedom based on the greater common good they serve. BTW, birth control and abortion access has real world data showing that they lower poverty and youth crime rates, and allows women greater opportunities in societies that allow access to them.

I agree with the verdict. I'm paying for my employee's medical, I'm covering the majority of the preventive contraceptives, I'm just saying no to what I believe is murder. They can use their salary I'm also paying them and snuff out as many lives as they want, just leave me out if it.

I agree with the verdict. I'm paying for my employee's medical, I'm covering the majority of the preventive contraceptives, I'm just saying no to what I believe is murder. They can use their salary I'm also paying them and snuff out as many lives as they want, just leave me out if it.

Alito suggested as an alternative that the state provide funding for contraceptives (something I actually support). But let's be real, here. Since having to put money into undifferentiated funds somehow qualifies as having to personally fund each and every item that undifferentiated fund is ever used to buy, how far are we really from seeing people using the same logic seen in this case to complain about tax dollars being devoted to funding contraceptives?

I agree with the verdict. I'm paying for my employee's medical, I'm covering the majority of the preventive contraceptives, I'm just saying no to what I believe is murder. They can use their salary I'm also paying them and snuff out as many lives as they want, just leave me out if it.

I'm afraid I must dissent. Fringe benefits are a form of pay for services rendered, and that includes your employees' health insurance benefits. You shouldn't be allowed to dictate how your employees use their fringe benefits any more than you should be allowed to dictate how they spend their salaries.

I agree with the verdict. I'm paying for my employee's medical, I'm covering the majority of the preventive contraceptives, I'm just saying no to what I believe is murder. They can use their salary I'm also paying them and snuff out as many lives as they want, just leave me out if it.

It's used to prevent birth, but after the egg may have been fertilized... That's my basic understanding of it. I know the human body sometimes rejects these fertilized eggs on their own, but I don't think as an employer I should play any part in that process.

I agree with the verdict. I'm paying for my employee's medical, I'm covering the majority of the preventive contraceptives, I'm just saying no to what I believe is murder. They can use their salary I'm also paying them and snuff out as many lives as they want, just leave me out if it.

I'm afraid I must dissent. Fringe benefits are a form of pay for services rendered, and that includes your employees' health insurance benefits. You shouldn't be allowed to dictate how your employees use their fringe benefits any more than you should be allowed to dictate how they spend their salaries.

I agree. I can't control what my employee buys or where their wages go. But as an owner of a business I can make my employee aware of the benefits I will pay for and what I won't. I'm not forcing them to do anything they don't want to do. If they feel I must provide it I'll argue I'm the one they are trying to control. You can still abort your embryo and work for me, it just doesn't show up in my record books because I don't believe in it.

All medical plans are different so if you want to argue I'm charging the same for medical benefits but providing less coverage I'll say go find a place that suits your needs better. You don't have to be on the company plan if you don't want to. You'll get to keep whatever you'd have to pay for the company plan in your check and do what you want with it. I won't be forced to do anything I don't want to do. Just like I won't force you to do anything you don't want to do.

It's used to prevent birth, but after the egg may have been fertilized... That's my basic understanding of it. I know the human body sometimes rejects these fertilized eggs on their own, but I don't think as an employer I should play any part in that process.

It's used to prevent birth, but after the egg may have been fertilized... That's my basic understanding of it. I know the human body sometimes rejects these fertilized eggs on their own, but I don't think as an employer I should play any part in that process.

I agree. I can't control what my employee buys or where their wages go. But as an owner of a business I can make my employee aware of the benefits I will pay for and what I won't. I'm not forcing them to do anything they don't want to do. If they feel I must provide it I'll argue I'm the one they are trying to control. You can still abort your embryo and work for me, it just doesn't show up in my record books because I don't believe in it.

All medical plans are different so if you want to argue I'm charging the same for medical benefits but providing less coverage I'll say go find a place that suits your needs better. You don't have to be on the company plan if you don't want to. You'll get to keep whatever you'd have to pay for the company plan in your check and do what you want with it. I won't be forced to do anything I don't want to do. Just like I won't force you to do anything you don't want to do.

Is yours among the firms which provides its own insurance, or do your employees receive their coverage from a third party? That makes a significant difference for how I am to respond to this.